A sentence from Burckhardt’s description of the Persian campaigns of Galerius: “But two indecisive battles and a third which Galerius lost through excessive boldness again drenched with Roman blood the desolate plain between Carrhae and the Euphrates where Crassus had once led ten legions to their death.”
What does one need to know to write a sentence like that? A great deal. Burckhardt gives us judgments about three battles in the space of half a sentence (two indecisive, one lost); he tells us the cause of Galerius’s loss in the third battle; he knows that the battle was a Roman disaster (the ground is “drenched” with blood); he knows the geography of ancient Persia, that there is a desolate plain between the town of Carrhae and the Euphrates; and he knows that this was also the site of a bloody Roman defeat in the first century BC, in another Persian campaign led by Marcus Licinius Crassus.
In short, Burckhardt packs what would be several weeks of research for a normal historian into a single succinct sentence.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles

Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…

The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…

Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.